Legal representatives may be impleaded in ongoing litigation when the right to sue survives, with procedural delays considered liberally to facilitate substantial justice.

JUDGMENT

1. By this Petition, filed under Articl27 of the Consitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the order dated 30 th August, 2021 passed by the Small Causes Court at Mumbai in R.A.E. Suit No.547 of 2015 (the "said suit") allowing Application impleading Respondents No.2 and 3 as to Plaintiffs to the said suit.

2. Petitioner is a co-operative Society under the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960. One Shri.Krishnakant Chandrakumar Jaitha and Respondent No.1 - Shri.Manish Rajnikant Jaitha being Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 respectively, had filed the said suit against Petitioner Co-operative Society as the Defendant therein on the grounds of failure on the part of Petitioner to rectify the alleged breaches of clauses 2(a) to (i) and 2 (l) of the lease dated 2 nd February, 1972 executed between the Plaintiffs as Lessors and the Defendant as Lessee for a period of 999 years including grounds of unauthorized permanent alterations and additions, failure to pay arrears of rent, seeking a decree and order against the Defendant Co-operative Society to quit and vacate the suit land bearing C.S.No.238 admeasuring 2737 sq.yds., Malabar Hill Division, situate at A/97, Jagmohandas Road, Mumbai - 400 006 along with structure building (the "said premises") and to handover and deliver to the Plaintiffs, vacant and peaceful possession thereof.

3. On 23/9/2015, Petitioner herein filed its Written Statement denying the averments in the Plaint and inter alia raising preliminary issues of jurisdiction and maintainability.

4. On 3/3/2017, the Small Causes Court framed issues of jurisdiction and maintainability as well as other issues in respect of the breaches alleged by the Original Plaintiffs.

5. On 29/12/2017 Original Plaintiff No.1 expired. According to Petitioner, the suit automatically abated on 29 th March, 2018 by operation of law under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Article 120 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963 and that the period for filing application for setting aside abatement under Article 121 of the LIMITATION ACT expired on 29/5/2018.

6. Settlement talks were initiated on 4/10/2018. Matter was referred to mediation on 30/11/2018 by the trial court. However, the mediation failed on 17/12/2018.

7. On 4/8/2019, the Respondent No.1 / the Original Plaintiff No.2 filed application in the trial court seeking deletion of the Plaintiff No.1 as he had died on 29 th December, 2017 and to add in his place Respondents No.2 and 3 as to Plaintiffs in the said suit which was objected to by Petitioner by filing an Affidavit-in-Reply dtd. 14/11/2019 after which Respondent No.1 filed Affidavit-in-Rejoinder dtd. 19/3/2020.

8. The trial court passed an order dated 17 th March, 2021 rejecting the First Respondent's aforesaid Application at Exh.18. The said order is quoted as under :-

"1. This is an application filed by the power of attorney for plaintiff No.2 requesting to bring legal representatives of deceased plaintiff No.1 on record and make them plaintiffs.

2. As per Order 22 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, any party can inform to the Court about death of the plaintiff and the Court may implead them as a party, if cause of action survives in favour of legal representatives. However, one person who deserves to be plaintiff should make an application.

3. The opinion of this Court is that if the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff No.1 deserves to be plaintiffs, they s